Report your experience with getting insurance via ACA (1 Viewer)

[tom22406]

OK,finally got my account up and running so that was a major improvement until I logged out and tried to log back in and got an error message.

I did get a chance to look around and price check some things and it looks as though I won't qualify for the subsidy and will have to pay around $100-$175 more a month.I'll have to go back and look at my records as to what the highest increase ever was over the years but this will be pretty close unless I can find something better(and I hope I will).

 

[stlrams]

Welcome to Obamacare where we redistribute wealth healthcare style.

 

[matttyl]

How many die every year due to lack of access to adequate health care according to your research?

The research shows that people died for lack of health insurance, not for lack of health care. People can still receive health care, even without insurance. All these people obtaining insurance (at a massive cost to the taxpayer) will not simply save all of those people, though. Further, this will lead to a supply and demand situation leaving others to go without care when needed and them to suffer (and die) because of it, even though they had insurance.

There are over 2.5 million deaths per yer in America. If "45 thousand" of them (number from the Harvard study you're likely referencing) is because of lack of access to adequate health care (lack of health insurance in the study), then we're only talking about less than 2% of all the deaths in this country. And that number is across all age bands, including those age 65 or more, which wouldn't be covered by the ACA.

Roughly 14 times as many people die from heart disease, and 13 times as many die from cancer each year. Even in today's day and age, more people die from pneumonia and influenza than die from "lack of adequate health care access". Just to put that number into perspective a bit, if you're to believe it 100%, which I don't.

Do you have the cure to cancer? B/c I'm pretty sure we have the cure to getting most of these folks access to health care.

Yes, and it was called EMTALA.

The ACA will not bring full access to health care to 100% of people - and again that's not what the study you're referring to showed. It was because of a lack of health insurance, not a lack of health care. They are not the same. Just because one has the health insurance, doesn't mean they will automatically receive the health care (see notes above on how many actually obtain the fully covered mammogram or colonoscopy).

As for Cancer, breakthroughs are happening all the time - what's your point? Since it's 13 times as much of a "killer", would you be ok to spend 13x as much to cure it (and I'm not taking just money)?

 

[Godsbrother]

OK,finally got my account up and running so that was a major improvement until I logged out and tried to log back in and got an error message.

I did get a chance to look around and price check some things and it looks as though I won't qualify for the subsidy and will have to pay around $100-$175 more a month.I'll have to go back and look at my records as to what the highest increase ever was over the years but this will be pretty close unless I can find something better(and I hope I will).

Ouch

 

[matttyl]

Essentially, matttyl's argument is: "It's only 20-30k Americans needlessly dying every year due to lack of access to adequate health care, so who cares."

I'll never understand this attitude. 2-3k people (roughly a 9/11) are dying every month, and folks like matttyl say they don't matter, b/c it's only 2% of US deaths.

No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I'm saying there are bigger issues out there, and that the ACA isn't going to magically cure this issue.

 

[matttyl]

I'd like to definitively know where tgunz is getting that number.

Apologies for not following closely along and missing it if it has already been linked.

No worries. The Harvard study estimated 45k die each year due to not having adequate access to health care. Link.

Matttyl seems to be correct: the study was 45k deaths are "associated with the lack of health insurance." Why do you keep associating the deaths with a lack of adequate access to health care?

B/c I think the two are related.

Do you think we should just continue to let 45k die each year b/c they don't have health insurance? That's ~ 3750 per month, more than the number who died on 9/11.

Again you're assuming that the ~45k number is totally accurate. I don't think it is. Just because someone has health insurance doesn't automatically mean they will obtain the needed health care (yet again my example of people who have 100% coverage for mammograms and colonoscopies and blood tests and such that don't have them performed).

Also, and I've said this for quite some time - don't think the ACA will automatically lead to more people having health insurance. Lots of healthy people will just go without and be charged a fine (but possibly not pay it). I'm sure the "net-net" number will be more people with health insurance in the end, but we aren't going to see 98%+ covered.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Essentially, matttyl's argument is: "It's only 20-30k Americans needlessly dying every year due to lack of access to adequate health care, so who cares."

I'll never understand this attitude. 2-3k people (roughly a 9/11) are dying every month, and folks like matttyl say they don't matter, b/c it's only 2% of US deaths.

No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I'm saying there are bigger issues out there, and that the ACA isn't going to magically cure this issue.

So we shouldn't do anything until cancer is cured?

 

[The Commish]

How many die every year due to lack of access to adequate health care according to your research?

The research shows that people died for lack of health insurance, not for lack of health care. People can still receive health care, even without insurance. All these people obtaining insurance (at a massive cost to the taxpayer) will not simply save all of those people, though. Further, this will lead to a supply and demand situation leaving others to go without care when needed and them to suffer (and die) because of it, even though they had insurance.

There are over 2.5 million deaths per yer in America. If "45 thousand" of them (number from the Harvard study you're likely referencing) is because of lack of access to adequate health care (lack of health insurance in the study), then we're only talking about less than 2% of all the deaths in this country. And that number is across all age bands, including those age 65 or more, which wouldn't be covered by the ACA.

Roughly 14 times as many people die from heart disease, and 13 times as many die from cancer each year. Even in today's day and age, more people die from pneumonia and influenza than die from "lack of adequate health care access". Just to put that number into perspective a bit, if you're to believe it 100%, which I don't.

Do you have the cure to cancer? B/c I'm pretty sure we have the cure to getting most of these folks access to health care.

When did the goal become "access to health care"?? Anyone can walk into an emergency room today and get treated. If you're talking about access to insurance, that's a different discussion and even then the access is only part of the equation. Doesn't help at all if they can't afford the access.

Sounds like making access to affordable health care for the 50M who are currently uninsured should be something we do immediately. Maybe create individual state markets in which private insurers compete to provide similar products for uninsured folks, and have the gov't subsidize those purchasing insurance from those markets if they meet certain income requirements.

Agreed...but we have ACA instead. So now what? NOTE: I've not ruled the ACA a complete failure. I'm fine waiting on the results to come in, but based on everything I've read, I'm comfortable in my thinking that ACA is not the answer. It could be (I suppose) if they come back and address the costs in a very real way, but until then, it's smoke and mirrors.

 

[matttyl]

Do you think we should just continue to let 45k die each year b/c they don't have health insurance? That's ~ 3750 per month, more than the number who died on 9/11.

Honestly, how many of those "45k" do you think could obtain and afford coverage today if they simply choose to apply for it? How many that couldn't afford it could already obtain either medicare or medicaid, or have their children covered by CHIPs?

I see people all the time who are uninsured for no good reason other than they simply haven't applied and/or don't want to pay for it. That's their choice.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'd like to definitively know where tgunz is getting that number.

Apologies for not following closely along and missing it if it has already been linked.

No worries. The Harvard study estimated 45k die each year due to not having adequate access to health care. Link.

Matttyl seems to be correct: the study was 45k deaths are "associated with the lack of health insurance." Why do you keep associating the deaths with a lack of adequate access to health care?

B/c I think the two are related.

Do you think we should just continue to let 45k die each year b/c they don't have health insurance? That's ~ 3750 per month, more than the number who died on 9/11.

Again you're assuming that the ~45k number is totally accurate. I don't think it is. Just because someone has health insurance doesn't automatically mean they will obtain the needed health care (yet again my example of people who have 100% coverage for mammograms and colonoscopies and blood tests and such that don't have them performed).

Also, and I've said this for quite some time - don't think the ACA will automatically lead to more people having health insurance. Lots of healthy people will just go without and be charged a fine (but possibly not pay it). I'm sure the "net-net" number will be more people with health insurance in the end, but we aren't going to see 98%+ covered.

The 45k may not be accurate. I would certainly love to read your study on the subject. Got a link?

 

[shader]

Do you think we should just continue to let 45k die each year b/c they don't have health insurance? That's ~ 3750 per month, more than the number who died on 9/11.

Honestly, how many of those "45k" do you think could obtain and afford coverage today if they simply choose to apply for it? How many that couldn't afford it could already obtain either medicare or medicaid, or have their children covered by CHIPs?

I see people all the time who are uninsured for no good reason other than they simply haven't applied and/or don't want to pay for it. That's their choice.

He has no interest in accurate numbers. He's trying to win an argument and take the "moral ground" by claiming that if you don't agree with him, you basically want 45k people a year to die.

Of course that's ridiculously simplistic, not accurate, and silly, but I don't think he cares.

 

[matttyl]

Sounds like making access to affordable health care for the 50M who are currently uninsured should be something we do immediately. Maybe create individual state markets in which private insurers compete to provide similar products for uninsured folks, and have the gov't subsidize those purchasing insurance from those markets if they meet certain income requirements.

Again, how do you know that many of those "50M" already currently have "access to affordable health care/insurance" in the current system, they just choose not to apply or pay for it? Don't private insurers already compete for the business in each state market, with products deemed appropriate by the marketplace itself, not by the government? And don't people already receive a government subsidy in the form of welfare/unemployment that they can use for this coverage (assuming they apply)?

It would be interesting to know how many of those "50M" honestly can't obtain coverage with today's rules, and how many could afford it if they wanted to.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Do you think we should just continue to let 45k die each year b/c they don't have health insurance? That's ~ 3750 per month, more than the number who died on 9/11.

Honestly, how many of those "45k" do you think could obtain and afford coverage today if they simply choose to apply for it? How many that couldn't afford it could already obtain either medicare or medicaid, or have their children covered by CHIPs?

I see people all the time who are uninsured for no good reason other than they simply haven't applied and/or don't want to pay for it. That's their choice.

He has no interest in accurate numbers. He's trying to win an argument and take the "moral ground" by claiming that if you don't agree with him, you basically want 45k people a year to die.

Of course that's ridiculously simplistic, not accurate, and silly, but I don't think he cares.

I'm certainly interested in accurate numbers. Do you have numbers that are more accurate than the Harvard study? If so, please share.

And you keep alluding to the number of folks who are currently insured who will now be uninsured due to the ACA. Do you have numbers on that?

 

[shader]

Do you think we should just continue to let 45k die each year b/c they don't have health insurance? That's ~ 3750 per month, more than the number who died on 9/11.

Honestly, how many of those "45k" do you think could obtain and afford coverage today if they simply choose to apply for it? How many that couldn't afford it could already obtain either medicare or medicaid, or have their children covered by CHIPs?

I see people all the time who are uninsured for no good reason other than they simply haven't applied and/or don't want to pay for it. That's their choice.

He has no interest in accurate numbers. He's trying to win an argument and take the "moral ground" by claiming that if you don't agree with him, you basically want 45k people a year to die.

Of course that's ridiculously simplistic, not accurate, and silly, but I don't think he cares.

I'm certainly interested in accurate numbers. Do you have numbers that are more accurate than the Harvard study? If so, please share.

And you keep alluding to the number of folks who are currently insured who will now be uninsured due to the ACA. Do you have numbers on that?

Of course I don't have numbers on that. How many of those 45k that die each year are now going to get healthcare and are now going to live due to their new healthcare? Do you have numbers on that?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Sounds like making access to affordable health care for the 50M who are currently uninsured should be something we do immediately. Maybe create individual state markets in which private insurers compete to provide similar products for uninsured folks, and have the gov't subsidize those purchasing insurance from those markets if they meet certain income requirements.

Again, how do you know that many of those "50M" already currently have "access to affordable health care/insurance" in the current system, they just choose not to apply or pay for it? Don't private insurers already compete for the business in each state market, with products deemed appropriate by the marketplace itself, not by the government? And don't people already receive a government subsidy in the form of welfare/unemployment that they can use for this coverage (assuming they apply)?

It would be interesting to know how many of those "50M" honestly can't obtain coverage with today's rules, and how many could afford it if they wanted to.

Sounds like their won't be any interest or demand for products on the exchanges.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Do you think we should just continue to let 45k die each year b/c they don't have health insurance? That's ~ 3750 per month, more than the number who died on 9/11.

Honestly, how many of those "45k" do you think could obtain and afford coverage today if they simply choose to apply for it? How many that couldn't afford it could already obtain either medicare or medicaid, or have their children covered by CHIPs?

I see people all the time who are uninsured for no good reason other than they simply haven't applied and/or don't want to pay for it. That's their choice.

That's the problem. Too many people choosing things for themselves. That's why smart people like Obama and Gunzy have to force them to make the right choices... they know what's best.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Do you think we should just continue to let 45k die each year b/c they don't have health insurance? That's ~ 3750 per month, more than the number who died on 9/11.

Honestly, how many of those "45k" do you think could obtain and afford coverage today if they simply choose to apply for it? How many that couldn't afford it could already obtain either medicare or medicaid, or have their children covered by CHIPs?

I see people all the time who are uninsured for no good reason other than they simply haven't applied and/or don't want to pay for it. That's their choice.

He has no interest in accurate numbers. He's trying to win an argument and take the "moral ground" by claiming that if you don't agree with him, you basically want 45k people a year to die.

Of course that's ridiculously simplistic, not accurate, and silly, but I don't think he cares.

I'm certainly interested in accurate numbers. Do you have numbers that are more accurate than the Harvard study? If so, please share.

And you keep alluding to the number of folks who are currently insured who will now be uninsured due to the ACA. Do you have numbers on that?

Of course I don't have numbers on that. How many of those 45k that die each year are now going to get healthcare and are now going to live due to their new healthcare? Do you have numbers on that?

More than before the ACA?

 

[matttyl]

The 45k may not be accurate. I would certainly love to read your study on the subject. Got a link?

Here's one that I found with a quick 10 second bing search:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

It says 18,000 - which if nothing else cuts your number in half. Also, if you actually read the article is says that 1,400 of those deaths were from high blood pressure. So instead of actually placing the blame on the individual who lead the poor lifestyle, we're to blame the evil insurance companies? How about the 1,500 that apparently died from HIV? Again, no blame on their promiscuous lifestyle, but all the blame on the insurance industry?

Further, are you saying that all of those 1,500 would have been saved had they simply had insurance? The life expectancy of HIV infected individuals would like to differ with you.

I'm sure there are deaths from people who lack health insurance who then fail to seek or can't obtain health care. There are also deaths of people with health insurance who fail to seek health care, even if it were fully covered.

 

[Foosball God]

Do we have any idea how many have actually been able to get signed up for this so far?

Haven't been able to find this anywhere.

Around 500 or so as of a couple of days ago. This is not counting State Based Exchanges. I haven't heard anything in the last few days.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The 45k may not be accurate. I would certainly love to read your study on the subject. Got a link?

Here's one that I found with a quick 10 second bing search:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

It says 18,000 - which if nothing else cuts your number in half. Also, if you actually read the article is says that 1,400 of those deaths were from high blood pressure. So instead of actually placing the blame on the individual who lead the poor lifestyle, we're to blame the evil insurance companies? How about the 1,500 that apparently died from HIV? Again, no blame on their promiscuous lifestyle, but all the blame on the insurance industry?

Further, are you saying that all of those 1,500 would have been saved had they simply had insurance? The life expectancy of HIV infected individuals would like to differ with you.

I'm sure there are deaths from people who lack health insurance who then fail to seek or can't obtain health care. There are also deaths of people with health insurance who fail to seek health care, even if it were fully covered.

So only 1500 a month dying needlessly. Yay!

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/08/i-like-you-obama-but-im-broke-americans-upset-that-obamacare-costs-money/

 

[tom22406]

Do we have any idea how many have actually been able to get signed up for this so far?

Haven't been able to find this anywhere.

Around 500 or so as of a couple of days ago. This is not counting State Based Exchanges. I haven't heard anything in the last few days.

Thanks again.

I was finally able to get a account going so it seems to be improving but trying to get back in once logged out seems to be the problem now.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Jon Stewart interview with Kathleen Sebelius

Part 2

 

[matttyl]

Essentially, matttyl's argument is: "It's only 20-30k Americans needlessly dying every year due to lack of access to adequate health care, so who cares."

I'll never understand this attitude. 2-3k people (roughly a 9/11) are dying every month, and folks like matttyl say they don't matter, b/c it's only 2% of US deaths.

No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I'm saying there are bigger issues out there, and that the ACA isn't going to magically cure this issue.

So we shouldn't do anything until cancer is cured?

Really, that's what you get out of this?

 

[matttyl]

And you keep alluding to the number of folks who are currently insured who will now be uninsured due to the ACA. Do you have numbers on that?

I hear about it more every day, don't you? People who have been living with 10-12% increases each year who will now have a huge 100% or so increase simply won't pay. Employers are fed up and drop plans, or kick spouses off.

What happened to the state of New York when they went to a guaranteed issue situation? There is no real difference in the % of people insured today as there was before GI.

EDIT - here's a bunch of people who won't continue to have coverage, due to the high prices of Obamacare.....

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/08/i-like-you-obama-but-im-broke-americans-upset-that-obamacare-costs-money/

 

[SacramentoBob]

Me and tommy had an interesting conversation about this a year or so ago where I gave some insider insight on why some people are uninsured. Tried searching for it, but my search kung fu has deteriorated.

 

[matttyl]

Sounds like making access to affordable health care for the 50M who are currently uninsured should be something we do immediately. Maybe create individual state markets in which private insurers compete to provide similar products for uninsured folks, and have the gov't subsidize those purchasing insurance from those markets if they meet certain income requirements.

Again, how do you know that many of those "50M" already currently have "access to affordable health care/insurance" in the current system, they just choose not to apply or pay for it? Don't private insurers already compete for the business in each state market, with products deemed appropriate by the marketplace itself, not by the government? And don't people already receive a government subsidy in the form of welfare/unemployment that they can use for this coverage (assuming they apply)?

It would be interesting to know how many of those "50M" honestly can't obtain coverage with today's rules, and how many could afford it if they wanted to.

Sounds like their won't be any interest or demand for products on the exchanges.

And do you have numbers for how many looking at exchanges currently have coverage, either individual or through an employer, to see if they can get a better deal? I know you love numbers, find me those.

 

[matttyl]

Of course I don't have numbers on that. How many of those 45k that die each year are now going to get healthcare and are now going to live due to their new healthcare? Do you have numbers on that?

More than before the ACA?

You don't know that, nor do you know if the 45k is accurate, nor do you know how many more people will die because they won't have insurance going forward that they have today. You're just throwing numbers around.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Gateway Timeout

The proxy server did not receive a timely response from the upstream server.

 

[matttyl]

The 45k may not be accurate. I would certainly love to read your study on the subject. Got a link?

Here's one that I found with a quick 10 second bing search:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

It says 18,000 - which if nothing else cuts your number in half. Also, if you actually read the article is says that 1,400 of those deaths were from high blood pressure. So instead of actually placing the blame on the individual who lead the poor lifestyle, we're to blame the evil insurance companies? How about the 1,500 that apparently died from HIV? Again, no blame on their promiscuous lifestyle, but all the blame on the insurance industry?

Further, are you saying that all of those 1,500 would have been saved had they simply had insurance? The life expectancy of HIV infected individuals would like to differ with you.

I'm sure there are deaths from people who lack health insurance who then fail to seek or can't obtain health care. There are also deaths of people with health insurance who fail to seek health care, even if it were fully covered.

So only 1500 a month dying needlessly. Yay!

They aren't "dying needlessly", they are dying because they have HIV or high blood pressure that their lifestyles brought on. Many will still continue to die, even if they do have coverage. And I guess you missed my point that a 10 second bing search cut your number by more than half.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I feel less on your side after finding out you use Bing.

 

[matttyl]

I feel less on your side after finding out you use Bing.

Would google have been better?

 

[tommyGunZ]

The 45k may not be accurate. I would certainly love to read your study on the subject. Got a link?

Here's one that I found with a quick 10 second bing search:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

It says 18,000 - which if nothing else cuts your number in half. Also, if you actually read the article is says that 1,400 of those deaths were from high blood pressure. So instead of actually placing the blame on the individual who lead the poor lifestyle, we're to blame the evil insurance companies? How about the 1,500 that apparently died from HIV? Again, no blame on their promiscuous lifestyle, but all the blame on the insurance industry?

Further, are you saying that all of those 1,500 would have been saved had they simply had insurance? The life expectancy of HIV infected individuals would like to differ with you.

I'm sure there are deaths from people who lack health insurance who then fail to seek or can't obtain health care. There are also deaths of people with health insurance who fail to seek health care, even if it were fully covered.

So only 1500 a month dying needlessly. Yay!

They aren't "dying needlessly", they are dying because they have HIV or high blood pressure that their lifestyles brought on. Many will still continue to die, even if they do have coverage. And I guess you missed my point that a 10 second bing search cut your number by more than half.

You didn't "cut my number in half", you simply provided a different study.

And they're dying "needlessly" if access to health care is the only thing preventing them from surviving. That's what these studies are; they are folks who would otherwise have lived had they had access to health insurance.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Of course I don't have numbers on that. How many of those 45k that die each year are now going to get healthcare and are now going to live due to their new healthcare? Do you have numbers on that?

More than before the ACA?

You don't know that, nor do you know if the 45k is accurate, nor do you know how many more people will die because they won't have insurance going forward that they have today. You're just throwing numbers around.

Why wouldn't the 45k number be accurate?

Do you even understand what these studies are attempting to highlight?

 

[Godsbrother]

Seems like this thread is being hijacked.

 

[tom22406]

Jon Stewart interview with Kathleen Sebelius

Part 2

I did enjoy the end of the Western civilization comment.

She really has no clue what she's saying here does she?

 

[shader]

Do you think we should just continue to let 45k die each year b/c they don't have health insurance? That's ~ 3750 per month, more than the number who died on 9/11.

Honestly, how many of those "45k" do you think could obtain and afford coverage today if they simply choose to apply for it? How many that couldn't afford it could already obtain either medicare or medicaid, or have their children covered by CHIPs?

I see people all the time who are uninsured for no good reason other than they simply haven't applied and/or don't want to pay for it. That's their choice.

He has no interest in accurate numbers. He's trying to win an argument and take the "moral ground" by claiming that if you don't agree with him, you basically want 45k people a year to die.

Of course that's ridiculously simplistic, not accurate, and silly, but I don't think he cares.

I'm certainly interested in accurate numbers. Do you have numbers that are more accurate than the Harvard study? If so, please share.

And you keep alluding to the number of folks who are currently insured who will now be uninsured due to the ACA. Do you have numbers on that?

Of course I don't have numbers on that. How many of those 45k that die each year are now going to get healthcare and are now going to live due to their new healthcare? Do you have numbers on that?

More than before the ACA?

Well there will also be a number of people who get dropped from healthcare and find that the "mandantory" health insurance is too expensive and they will pay the fines.

How many of these people will die? Which number will be higher?

 

[oso diablo]

Do we have any idea how many have actually been able to get signed up for this so far?

Haven't been able to find this anywhere.

Around 500 or so as of a couple of days ago. This is not counting State Based Exchanges. I haven't heard anything in the last few days.

is this a scoop?

 

[matttyl]

You didn't "cut my number in half", you simply provided a different study.

And they're dying "needlessly" if access to health care is the only thing preventing them from surviving. That's what these studies are; they are folks who would otherwise have lived had they had access to health insurance.

and that study shows that the "problem" is less than half as big as you said it was. That's all I'm saying. Personally I don't think the number is even that large.

And those studies can't possibly know the number, because they can't say for sure that each of those people would have survived had they had access to health care or health insurance or whatever. Do they have a time machine to look into the future for each one of them? Again, look at my example of the number of women who have 100% covered access to health care through a mammogram who choose not to have that service - or people who have access to colonoscopies that don't obtain them. Just because you give people access to health care doesn't mean that they will #1 obtain it, or that #2 it will actually save them.

 

[matttyl]

Why wouldn't the 45k number be accurate?

Do you even understand what these studies are attempting to highlight?

Why wouldn't the 18k number be accurate? If one is accurate, that means the other one isn't. I know what they are attempting to highlight, but that doesn't make their conclusion correct. Access to health care doesn't equal survival.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Of course I don't have numbers on that. How many of those 45k that die each year are now going to get healthcare and are now going to live due to their new healthcare? Do you have numbers on that?

More than before the ACA?

You don't know that, nor do you know if the 45k is accurate, nor do you know how many more people will die because they won't have insurance going forward that they have today. You're just throwing numbers around.

Why wouldn't the 45k number be accurate?

Do you even understand what these studies are attempting to highlight?

Why are you still flapping your lips on a subject you know next to nothing about. Sign to #### up for Obamacare and teel me how great it is. You are a hypocritical moron and have no insight into the reality of this subject.

I would like to know how many of you people have signed up for Obamacare and tell us what your numbers are.

I have run my numbers and we are better off paying the tax and living without medical insurance. IT IS EXPENSIVE guys, it will not be affordable to most Americans.

 

[Foosball God]

Do we have any idea how many have actually been able to get signed up for this so far?

Haven't been able to find this anywhere.

Around 500 or so as of a couple of days ago. This is not counting State Based Exchanges. I haven't heard anything in the last few days.

is this a scoop?

Not officially.

 

[Foosball God]

Of course I don't have numbers on that. How many of those 45k that die each year are now going to get healthcare and are now going to live due to their new healthcare? Do you have numbers on that?

More than before the ACA?

You don't know that, nor do you know if the 45k is accurate, nor do you know how many more people will die because they won't have insurance going forward that they have today. You're just throwing numbers around.

Why wouldn't the 45k number be accurate?

Do you even understand what these studies are attempting to highlight?

Why are you still flapping your lips on a subject you know next to nothing about. Sign to #### up for Obamacare and teel me how great it is. You are a hypocritical moron and have no insight into the reality of this subject.

I would like to know how many of you people have signed up for Obamacare and tell us what your numbers are.

I have run my numbers and we are better off paying the tax and living without medical insurance. IT IS EXPENSIVE guys, it will not be affordable to most Americans.

Unless something happens

 

[SacramentoBob]

Do we have any idea how many have actually been able to get signed up for this so far?

Haven't been able to find this anywhere.

Around 500 or so as of a couple of days ago. This is not counting State Based Exchanges. I haven't heard anything in the last few days.

Jesus.

Apparently the state of Washington was able to enroll 20x that amount.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/08/heres-what-obamacare-looks-like-when-it-works/

 

[matttyl]

I have run my numbers and we are better off paying the tax and living without medical insurance. IT IS EXPENSIVE guys, it will not be affordable to most Americans.

Unless something happens

I keep hearing people saying that - "unless something happens". At some point, insurance just isn't worth it, no matter what the something is. I mean, do you have every dollar of life insurance that you qualify for? I mean, what if something happens? Do you have every penny of disability insurance you qualify for? Flood insurance? Earthquake coverage? Flood and earthquake typically aren't covered by a homeowner's policy. Do you have the highest possible limits on your auto policy, cause what if you blow a tire and crash into a school bus full of kids?

Sure, a healthy 23 year old who takes great care of them self could get a cancer or something - but would it be worth $5k a year for him to offset that risk and have it covered (after his deductible)?

 

[matttyl]

Do we have any idea how many have actually been able to get signed up for this so far?

Haven't been able to find this anywhere.

Around 500 or so as of a couple of days ago. This is not counting State Based Exchanges. I haven't heard anything in the last few days.

Jesus.

Apparently the state of Washington was able to enroll 20x that amount.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/08/heres-what-obamacare-looks-like-when-it-works/

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of those ~10k people. How many had coverage already and the marketplace coverage is less (because they had been charged more for having a pre-ex, meaning they aren't healthy). How many people didn't have coverage already because they had a bad enough pre-ex (meaning they aren't healthy). And how many are truly healthy people who want to do the "right thing" and pay more than they had been paying.

Oh, and the article shows the example of a 28 year old female being charged $180.83 per month for a "bronze" plan with a $5,000 deductible and $40 PCP co-pays with the maximum allowed $6,350 out of pocket limit. I'm sure there are plenty of 28 year old females willing and happy to pay $2,170 a year to have a $5,000 deductible......

 

[Foosball God]

I have run my numbers and we are better off paying the tax and living without medical insurance. IT IS EXPENSIVE guys, it will not be affordable to most Americans.

Unless something happens

I keep hearing people saying that - "unless something happens". At some point, insurance just isn't worth it, no matter what the something is. I mean, do you have every dollar of life insurance that you qualify for? I mean, what if something happens? Do you have every penny of disability insurance you qualify for? Flood insurance? Earthquake coverage? Flood and earthquake typically aren't covered by a homeowner's policy. Do you have the highest possible limits on your auto policy, cause what if you blow a tire and crash into a school bus full of kids?

Sure, a healthy 23 year old who takes great care of them self could get a cancer or something - but would it be worth $5k a year for him to offset that risk and have it covered (after his deductible)?

a healthy 23 year old can enroll in catastrophic coverage and be covered for the "catastrophic" situation. Apparently Mr. Two Cents is not under thirty. Of course there is a point of diminishing returns with anything, but it likely isn't to that point with Mr. Two Cents (I can't say with certainty since I don't know him or his situation). People tend to not realize how much they will pay if something even minimal goes wrong. That is an indictment on our whole healthcare system, with or without the ACA.

 

[Foosball God]

Do we have any idea how many have actually been able to get signed up for this so far?

Haven't been able to find this anywhere.

Around 500 or so as of a couple of days ago. This is not counting State Based Exchanges. I haven't heard anything in the last few days.

Jesus.

Apparently the state of Washington was able to enroll 20x that amount.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/08/heres-what-obamacare-looks-like-when-it-works/

The enrollments have largely been in the Medicaid program, however, with 916 people buying private insurance.

 

[Black Box]

I wonder how many people have died due to lack of insurance, but tried to get it through the ACA website only to find it down. How does Foos sleep at night?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Do we have any idea how many have actually been able to get signed up for this so far?

Haven't been able to find this anywhere.

Around 500 or so as of a couple of days ago. This is not counting State Based Exchanges. I haven't heard anything in the last few days.

Jesus.

Apparently the state of Washington was able to enroll 20x that amount.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/08/heres-what-obamacare-looks-like-when-it-works/

The enrollments have largely been in the Medicaid program, however, with 916 people buying private insurance.

Right, but 10,000 people have been able to successfully use the Washington state website.